They may have had intel this subject might fight, have access to weaponry. This sort of charge has serious consequences and sometimes these subjects decide they have nothing to lose. Officers have been killed serving search warrants on these cases.

I'd start with an MRAP and work down from there. Then again, I'm not big on inter- agency cooperation, police helicopters, DHS, and NDAA. Smells too much like Nazi Germany or the Russia, one of which, I've lived in.

In the other thread, you mentioned masses of armed and trained bad guys. Some dissonance with this position?

Not at all. Any seeming conflict I may have is almost certainly derived from who I think should be defending whom.

Some people favor a strong law enforcement presence (which equates to a government with laws that we already know don't work and only affect people that follow those laws - that are far from being free), OR.... to the second amendment's point, "shall not be infringed," at all, ever, regardless of what anyone thinks about it, in order to protect everyone from overzealous "sheep dogs."

You know, I have to laugh every time I see an overweight, lower IQ, out of shape, "protector" that I am completely certain I am more competent than, telling me that I need to surrender my body armor and get his permission to carry, so he can "protect" me. That's probably the dissonance you speak of.

In my neck of the woods, a good portion of the population is quite well armed and grew up shooting and is quite supportive of the sheriff who has a very competent SWAT team and an MRAP. The left coast invaders snivel about the MRAP and the guns that the local population owns.

I'd put both the country boys in law enforcement and the general population around here against sicarios anytime. The Japanese were said to be concerned about "a rifle behind every blade of grass" on the US mainland during WWII. That description still applies here.

In my neck of the woods, a good portion of the population is quite well armed and grew up shooting and is quite supportive of the sheriff who has a very competent SWAT team and an MRAP. The left coast invaders snivel about the MRAP and the guns that the local population owns.

I'd put both the country boys in law enforcement and the general population around here against sicarios anytime. The Japanese were said to be concerned about "a rifle behind every blade of grass" on the US mainland during WWII. That description still applies here.

I'm not going to turn this into a pissing contest. You guys have it easy up there. I'm wondering how many police would fold the second someone was cutting off their wife's fingers over the phone? It's a fair question. You guys don't deal with that type of thing at all, don't act like you do...because Hurricane Katrina showed just where some people's hearts are at.... "I'm da protecta!!!" Please.

My point is that this is something that every human should be doing for themselves. We all saw how well Stockton turned out today. I wonder how much that flubber is going to cost? L.A...and newspaper ladies... SWAT? My a..

Ps GM... I'm still alive in one of the most evil countries on the planet, doing this.. Not bragging. Just saying I might have a clue as to what I'm talking about. Not saying you don't. Simply saying there is more than one way to look at it, without necessarily being a "criminal."

Some people really don't need you... something police in general are loathe to admit. They'd have to turn in their hero status, and sorry, I'm fresh out of hero status to give.

Where's that picture of the fat, Black, female deputy eating the turkey leg when I need it?

The cartels don't do that here because they can't get away with it here. Even in Phoenix, they prey only on criminals. There is a reason for that.

If they get brave enough to try, they will get a reminder about the American talent for organized violence.

I'm game. I have long been against writing legislation to protect the stupid, or liberal non hackers.

Got in a fist fight with some Nation of Islam guys once... a long time ago in my past. Afterwards, there was a general understanding of sorts. They told me something that I'll never forget, and for as much as I don't like them, truth is truth; "self reliance." It's served me well. Everyone should adopt that.

Sure, law enforcement in the US is a lot safer than other places. Yes, there are a lot of empty uniforms that can slide by because of that, but there are plenty of warriors in the ranks. Lots of young guys on the job who spent their late teens/early 20's getting sand in their boots in much less safe environments.

Sure, law enforcement in the US is a lot safer than other places. Yes, there are a lot of empty uniforms that can slide by because of that, but there are plenty of warriors in the ranks. Lots of young guys on the job who spent their late teens/early 20's getting sand in their boots in much less safe environments.

Agreed on both accounts. I am just the type that thinks every one should be doing it for themselves...nothing more, nothing less. I'm glad that we're both still around to discuss this. It's nice to hear from you.

On a balmy Saturday night in April 2001, an unarmed 19-year-old black man, Timothy Thomas, was shot and killed by a white Cincinnati police officer, Stephen Roach. Two days later, hundreds of protesters mobbed City Hall and the city was overrun by rioters for four days—stores were looted and set on fire, shots were fired at police, innocent citizens were attacked.

Watching the news from Ferguson, Mo., brings back the smell of smoke and acrid tang of fear. It took years for Cincinnati to recover. Afraid of assaults and belligerent protesters, suburbanites shunned downtown. Bill Cosby, Whoopi Goldberg and conventions canceled visits to Cincinnati to honor a boycott initiated by the Black United Front. The riots cost at least $35 million in property damage, lawsuits and boycott losses. The city finally turned the corner when the NAACP held its national convention here in 2008.

In time, Cincinnati's leaders, black and white, learned some valuable lessons about race relations. Here are five that Ferguson, and other U.S. cities that may be one gunshot away from rioting, could benefit from:

• Tell the public everything immediately. Cincinnati police offered no explanation of the shooting for two-and-a-half days. Not surprisingly, they were perceived as hiding something. As politicians, protesters and the press pushed the cops to back off, crime exploded. Within three months shootings increased 300%. By 2005 annual homicides had doubled, with more than 300 victims of black-on-black killings between 2001 and 2005.

The shooting of Timothy Thomas was a tragic mistake by a 27-year-old cop startled during a foot pursuit in a dark alley. It later came out that Officer Roach's first words after the shooting were: "It just went off. My gun just went off." He was eventually acquitted of negligent homicide.

But the "murder" narrative became impossible to dissolve with facts. "One of our biggest mistakes was zero communication," Police Chief Tom Streicher said after the riots. "That allowed the city to boil." Thirteen years later Ferguson made the same mistake.

• Set the record straight. Many in the press labeled Cincinnati's riots as a "rebellion" or "uprising" against injustice—even as white motorists were pulled from their cars and beaten bloody. News outlets repeated claims that 15 black men had been killed in police custody in the five years before the riots. But nearly all were shot by police in self defense. Some had assaulted officers with knives, axes and guns. The authorities in Cincinnati didn't do enough to set the record straight.

• Don't crucify the cops. During the riots, Cincinnati's finest worked around the clock, risked their lives and showed heroic restraint. They were shot at but never responded with lethal force. Beanbag shotguns, cops on horseback and a curfew from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. restored order without fatalities. Ferguson's midnight curfew was useless.

• The federal government can slow the healing. After the Cincinnati riots, the Justice Department tried to bully cops into admitting civil-rights violations, but it failed. "They were out to hang the cops," said local Fraternal Order of Police President Keith Fangman in 2004. A Justice Department investigation dragged on for five years, yet found no grounds for federal prosecution of Officer Roach for what it determined was a "fast moving, inherently dangerous situation in a dark alley."

Meanwhile, Cincinnati went to work repairing race relations. After a year of meetings supervised by a federal judge, representatives of the city, the police department, the ACLU, the Black United Front and the police union imposed the Collaborative Agreement for police reforms. They included less aggressive pursuit guidelines, a citizen complaint board and community-oriented policing.

It was resented by many cops. But Assistant Chief of Police Paul Humphries, who worked the riots in body armor, said recently, "Some had to be drug along with their heels dug in the sand, but we made a lot of changes and we're better for it."

One of the most effective changes was deployment of Tasers that almost eliminated shootings by police. Another was the 2005 election of a black mayor, Mark Mallory, who backed the police. He hired Cincinnati's first black police chief in 2011, James Craig (now chief of police in Detroit), who rushed to volatile crime scenes to calm the city.

Before the riots there was simmering anger at police in the black community. The police were insular and authoritarian. Today they are proactive, transparent, a model of community-oriented policing.

• Repudiate race-baiters. Many agitators came to Cincinnati to loot and riot. The ones in suits were no better. As in Ferguson today, they exploited the crisis for power, press and profit.

Ken Lawson, the black attorney who represented the family of Timothy Thomas, was known as the "Law Dog," the most loved and hated lawyer in town. Before the riots, he said the only "conceivable reason" the police were slow to explain the shooting was "they are trying to cover up the murder."

Lawson served two years in prison on drug charges in 2009 and now teaches law at the University of Hawaii. He has courageously changed his mind about the police shootings.

In a recent interview he told me: "I was wrong for the positions I took with the police and race in Cincinnati. Those cases of police killing black men were accidental. If I say, 'You shot him because he's black,' I'm saying it was racism. But more likely it was fear. The cop wants to come home safe tonight."

Mr. Lawson sees accusations of racism in shootings like the one in Ferguson as "a distraction from the truth." He adds that "by refusing to accept responsibility for our own conduct, by refusing to forgive others for their wrongs, the community stays resentful. Just as the black community must get honest so must the police. That's what Ferguson can take from Cincinnati."

Maybe someday the race hustlers in Ferguson will be as honest. Maybe someday we all will learn from our mistakes.

Mr. Bronson, a contributing editor of Cincy Magazine and a former columnist and editorial page editor of the Cincinnati Enquirer, is the author of "Behind the Lines: The Untold Stories of the Cincinnati Riots" (Chilidog Press, 2006).

Some points about this. One, the cops had secured the area (arguably containing the threat).

Two, the guy was disturbed, not attacking.

Three, those two points allowed for discretionary time. (A wonderful concept and process, because among other things it allows you time to get other options -- like a fuckin' taser)

Four, the cop acting nonchalant hid the taser from sight and set up the attack The crazy dude didn't know he was being set up so he didn't react violently. Literally this -- not the technology -- is what made this a viable strategy.

Five the cop 'shot him in the back' (again, reducing the time crazy guy had to assess what was happening and decide to attack)

Six, the nature of the crazy guy's behavior was more threatening violence than actually attacking. Important because violence overwhelmingly comes with instructions how to avoid it -- even from crazy people. When he was first hit with the taser his reaction was more threatening than an actual attack (although it's possible he was waving the blade to clear the wires)

Seven, when he finally did get around to trying to attack the officer - well let's just say electricity is faster.

Eight, where I think the cops 'goofed' is their lack of polearms. While I'm sure there was a lethal back up, that's not necessarily effective for officer safety. Had that guy spun and attacked when the barbs hit him, we'd have a chopped cop. This even if the shooters opened fire.

Remember that discretionary time? If you're going for non-lethal (although less than lethal is more accurate) yay team! But you need to have something lined up to keep the officer safe if non-lethal doesn't work (which sad to say does happen.*) Even if another cop had a push broom it could have been used to hold the guy off until the lightening took effect. Or kept one's fellow officer alive long enough for the shooters to influence the outcome.

Am I for non-lethal measures if possible? Hell yes. But look at the the circumstances when they work instead of just assuming they'll work all the time. Or that you'll have time for them.

M

* Let's say that there's a 20% failure rate in certain circumstances of non-lethal means. Here's the thing about that. The people who are demanding the police ALWAYS use them, would not themselves volunteer for an assignment where their chances of dying were two out of ten -- so where do they get off demanding the cops take those risks?

MacYoung's comments are accurate. The initial article is the typical ignorance you hear from those with no idea what they are talking about. The US will generally deploy a tactical team with less lethal weaponry as well as lethal overwatch and try to avoid using deadly force.

It's one thing when you have something of a contained situation where time permits having a team with the tools to handle an EDP/CIT call. It's another when you have two patrol officers being charged with a knife by an aggressor.

* Let's say that there's a 20% failure rate in certain circumstances of non-lethal means. Here's the thing about that. The people who are demanding the police ALWAYS use them, would not themselves volunteer for an assignment where their chances of dying were two out of ten -- so where do they get off demanding the cops take those risks?

I get so tired of hearing people blanketly speak about what others would or would not do, especially when it makes themselves seem more "courageous."

We can discuss the numbers (as I am not fully convinced by this article), but it is an interesting look.

Death by auto accident or being shot in the face performing a traffic stop are equally dead, but equipment, training and technology have reduced the death rates for most every occupation, including law enforcement officers. Some of this equipment fuels the bogus "militarization" claim.

Though it's not usually fatal, law enforcement is on the receiving end of a lot of violence and trauma. Most people are stressed by public speaking. Law enforcement officers faces stressors much worse on a regular basis.

We can discuss the numbers (as I am not fully convinced by this article), but it is an interesting look.

Death by auto accident or being shot in the face performing a traffic stop are equally dead, but equipment, training and technology have reduced the death rates for most every occupation, including law enforcement officers. Some of this equipment fuels the bogus "militarization" claim.

Though it's not usually fatal, law enforcement is on the receiving end of a lot of violence and trauma. Most people are stressed by public speaking. Law enforcement officers faces stressors much worse on a regular basis.

Much of this is why I am not fully convinced. I did find the discussion to be somewhat interesting, though. And thanks for your professional view here, GM. I especially liked this point: "Most people are stressed by public speaking. Law enforcement officers faces stressors much worse on a regular basis."

His name is not on them. If you'll copy and paste the headlines of those two articles above into google, you'll find that those two articles are from abcnews.go.com. You'll find the actual authors of the two articles, neither of whom are Mark Levin.

You'll also note that the Marklevinshow.com website is actually owned by Cumulus Media inc, who also happens to own WABC 770 in New York City, the Levin show flagship station. So it's pretty doubtful that Mr. Levin vetts the news stories fed to the media company owned website by a widget some web master coded into it.

Glad to help you out with this. If you need more help in performing due diligence on information sources, just ask.

His name is not on them. If you'll copy and paste the headlines of those two articles above into google, you'll find that those two articles are from abcnews.go.com. You'll find the actual authors of the two articles, neither of whom are Mark Levin.

You'll also note that the Marklevinshow.com website is actually owned by Cumulus Media inc, who also happens to own WABC 770 in New York City, the Levin show flagship station. So it's pretty doubtful that Mr. Levin vetts the news stories fed to the media company owned website by a widget some web master coded into it.

Glad to help you out with this. If you need more help in performing due diligence on information sources, just ask.

Additionally, I find it amusing that even when I agree with you, try to send traffic to the "marklevinshow" (NOT to be confused in any with "Mark Levin"... who knows where you can listen to him if not the site of nationally syndicated radio show's website, despite all the stuff with his name, his books, archived radio shows, etc.) you still want to argue. God damn.

I found the stories at marklevinshow.com. How the hell is that not having his name on them?

I have not followed the bunny trail to its end, but assuming GM's sourcing research is correct, still there is the matter of the human dimension here GM. BD was communicating in a gracious manner with you. Snark was not necessary in the response. The same point could have been made with "You may not realize it but actually the two pieces in question are not by ML. The way it goes down is this , , , etc." Same point, different tone.

I wonder what law enforcement people here think of the actions of the officer, as we know them, in this strange incident.

It is some kind of an ego or I dare you thing for pedestrians to intentionally compete with cars for space in a street, with sidewalks available on both sides and no doubt a law or two against blocking traffic. For Brown, the obvious thing to do would have been to move over, at least when confronted by the police. That isn't what happened here. In this case, the officer spoke to them, perhaps with sarcasm. Brown swore at him and walked on, according to this story. Wilson called for back up and pulled out to block and confront them.

At the point where they walked on, we might all say in hindsight, the rest wasn't worth it. But isn't that when an area becomes, what they call in other countries, a Police no-go zone? http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=977.msg84433#msg84433-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It started with a simple request — "will you just walk on the sidewalk?" Forty-five seconds later, Michael Brown lay sprawled on the street, shot dead by a police officer who had never before fired his gun in the line of duty.

And as he drove away from the 18-year-old's body, heading to the Ferguson police station to wash Brown's blood from his hands and surrender his gun, all Officer Darren Wilson could think was, "I'm just kind of in shock of what just happened. I really didn't believe it."

Those were the words he shared with a grand jury. And late Monday, Wilson's explanation of that deadly day in early August became public for the first time, in a small part of an enormous trove of documents released by St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch.

Thousands of pages of police interviews, autopsy reports and secret testimony — including Wilson's — were made public after McCulloch announced the grand jury's decision not to indict Wilson in Brown's death.

Until late Monday, Wilson's voice had remained silent, and the general story line went largely unchallenged: White police officer shoots unarmed young black man trying to surrender on a summer day in a St. Louis suburb.

But on Monday, Wilson's terror and panic were plain to see in 90 pages of his testimony before the grand jury on Sept. 16 and an 18-page interview with detectives that was recorded Aug. 10, the day after Brown's death.

Wilson was leaving an earlier call, having assisted the mother of a sick infant, when he saw Brown and another young man walking down the middle of the street, forcing traffic to slow and swerve around them. The police officer told the grand jury that he drove up, stopped his car and asked Wilson, "What's wrong with the sidewalk?"

In Wilson's account, it was all downhill from there. Brown swore at the officer, and the two men walked away. So Wilson called for backup, threw his police-issued Chevy Tahoe into reverse and cut the young men off.

As he opened the door, he testified, Brown slammed it shut on Wilson's leg. The officer told Brown to get back and opened the door again.

"He then grabs my door again and shuts my door," Wilson told the grand jury. "At that time is when I saw him coming into my vehicle.... I was hit right here in the side of the face with a fist."

The two men scuffled, Wilson said, and when he struggled to gain some control over the situation "and not be trapped in my car anymore," he grabbed Brown's arm. "The only way I can describe it is I felt like a 5-year-old holding on to Hulk Hogan."

Brown, he said, looked like a "demon."

I've never used my weapon before- Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson on shooting of Michael BrownWhen Wilson drew his gun from inside his car and told Brown to get back or he would shoot, the officer said, "he immediately grabs my gun and says, 'You are too much of a [coward] to shoot me.'"

Wilson said he pulled his gun because "I felt that another one of those punches in my face could knock me out or worse." Brown was bigger than the 6-foot-4 officer, and stronger, too. "I'd already taken two to the face, and I didn't think I would, the third one could be fatal if he hit me right."

Wilson ultimately got out of the car, and Brown began to run away. Then he stopped. And turned. And began to run back toward the officer. He made a fist with his left hand and reached under his shirt with his right. Wilson testified that he kept telling him to get on the ground. Brown didn't.

"I shoot a series of shots," Wilson said. "I don't know how many I shot, I just know I shot it."

Later, in front of the grand jury, Wilson was asked whether he had ever had to use excessive force in the line of duty before Aug. 9.